Email conversation with a Judge to be

We have an election coming up in June here in California. I was looking at those running for judges. Most of the incumbents were officially endorsed by Sheriff Baca, a notorious socialist gun grabber. Therefore, I was looking at those running against the incumbents and decided to email some questions to one of them; questions about their political leanings and about gun control. I got a response. She gave the typical line about supporting the right to bear arms but also in favor of gun control. My response was about what you'd expect; control only ensurs that only the bad guys end up armed, sporting issues, Constitutional demands, etc. It was a very respectful exchange overall. She then responded back via email with this:

"My concern, however, is that some of the children I've worked with over the years felt that they, too, are entitled to guns. Obviously the concern there is that the parents are not or cannot properly supervising their children. My thought would be to have some type of control on parents who have guns and children to ensure that the kids don't have access to their parent’s weapons. Just a thought."

Where would you go with this? It's harder for me to defend my position when children are involved. I'm a Libertarian and think there should be only two laws for adults (don't take what doesn't belong to you or hurt someone unnecessarily). But when it comes to kids, I think more rules are acceptable. I'm sure you'd agree that requiring guns to be locked up when kids are in the house doesn't make for much of a home defense, and I'm willing to say that but I'd like more to add with regard to kids. Any stats or examples you'd give? What do you all think about her response?

If you enjoyed reading about "Email conversation with a Judge to be" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

Henry Bowman

April 30, 2008, 06:16 PM

Holding the parents responsible will help. Having a law that says you must keep potentially dangerous items away from kids --OK. However, irresponsible parents will not do the right thing just because there's a law saying they must. A judge can't legislate in any event. No form of "gun control" will address her concern either. How does denying the law abiding and responsible a right have any effect on the criminal and irresponsible?

Blackbeard

April 30, 2008, 07:18 PM

Ask the candidate if she would punish parents if their kids had access to illegal drugs. How about spray paint? Eggs? Toilet paper?

If you're going to create a whole new legal burden on parents, why limit it to guns?

jfountain2

April 30, 2008, 07:33 PM

Obviously the concern there is that the parents are not or cannot properly supervising their children.

If she is concerned about the proper supervision of the kids then wouldn't it make more sense to remove the children from a bad environment instead of leaving them there to grow up with screwed up priorities and values.

If the children are raised right the judge would not need to be concerned about guns in the house.

DoubleTapDrew

April 30, 2008, 07:54 PM

I hope she plans on requiring parents to store their car keys in a safe as well.

I don't trust anybody that follows the ...support right to keep and bear... with the word "but" or "however". It negates anything that came before that word.
"I support the right to keep and bear arms, but I think it should be reasonably restricted to those who are properly trained (like...oh I dunno...police and military)." :uhoh:

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow

April 30, 2008, 08:11 PM

The answer is, you should tell her that you strongly agree that guns must be kept out of the hands of children and felons, and that as a result, you believe *strict liability tort laws* in the guns&children area are a a very GOOD and CONSTITUTIONAL idea!!!!!!!!!!! (unlike the stupid crap that is constantly proposed by the gun banners, which doesn't reduce crime, and doesn't do anything except infringe rights and actually increase crime).

Laws that make parents responsible, both civilly AND criminally, when they GROSSLY negligently allow their children (or friends of their children) access to guns, and someone is harmed as a direct result, damn yes they should be held fully accountable, and even charged with involuntary manslaughter if the negligence is reckless and the injury is death.

This is perfectly in keeping with the idea of "don't punish until someone has done something wrong" and "trust until proven untrustworthy". This does not in any way infringe upon the right to KEEP and BEAR arms. What IS highly unconstitutional, however, is ANY attempt to restrict the TYPE of weapon owned, or WHERE the law-abiding non-felon may carry it. Tell her you're all for laws that hold idgits responsible for their negligent actions. Now it should NOT rise to the level of criminal liability unless the negligence is at least on the gross negligence level (e.g. If the kid uses a crowbar to pry into the security case, gets a gun, and shoots his friend - he actively undertook to disobey the parents commands and overcome specific steps designed to keep him out - that's not gross negligence, and probably not even ordinary negligence, unless you know the kid to be a complete disobedient troublemaking knucklehead).

But I still support civil liability (tort libility) for *ordinary* negligence allowing the kids to get access to the guns, and support both civil and criminal for *gross* negligence, and support even homocide charges (involuntary manslaughter) where it's beyond gross and rises to the level of extreme recklessness, and a death results. Example of extreme recklessness - intentionally leaving a loaded pistol out in the open on a low table with a 6 year old child in the room unsupervised.

We should all be in favor of laws that don't restrict the actual ownership in any way, but punish the guilty severely - this will help us maintain our RKBA.

Explain that this is 1,000% different from laws that DON'T work to do anything; those being laws that restrict the type of firearm available to the law-abiding non-felon - you and me and her. Innocent until proven guilty. RIGHT to keep and bear arms. NO right to be negligent. It's about ACTIONS, not tools and technologies.

TEDDY

April 30, 2008, 09:58 PM

The best way is to bring up children with the teaching of gun save handling.I would be in jail if your ideas were enforced.my guns were out in open and I taught that if they wanted to handle a gun I would let them while I was there.I had 2 boys and a girl.the boys went to vietnam and thanked me for teaching them how to handle an mg,things that dont get taught in training.I am (was) WW2 AOM3C.
growing up before WW2 was much differant than now.schools had rifle clubs.and nobody was shoked to see a boy walk down the road with a rifle or shotgun.:uhoh::confused::fire::D:D

NG VI

April 30, 2008, 10:50 PM

Then why not mandate child locks on all children manufactured after 4-1-2009, so that when the parents are not or cannot supervise them they will be rendered inoperable until such time as the responsible parent can supervise their actions?

This message brought to you by NG VI for Judge, DA, and Governor.

armedandsafe

April 30, 2008, 11:33 PM

Ask her for the date(s) of the court trial where she found those negligent parents guilty.

WHAT? There wasn't one? Hmmmmm It would appear, then, that they are, just perhaps, inocent until PROVEN guilty. Now, there's a novel thought for a judge to mull over. :evil:

Pops

Standing Wolf

April 30, 2008, 11:45 PM

My thought would be to have some type of control on parents who have guns and children to ensure that the kids don't have access to their parent’s weapons. Just a thought.

Only government is qualified to make value decisions.

Superlite27

May 1, 2008, 12:03 AM

How about suggesting the truth:

When things are denied to children, they develop a natural curiosity about the "forbidden" object. By segregating firearms and children, it creates a scenario where a child could develop the desire to play with a dangerous item they have no knowledge of.

How come children raised with a healthy attitude towards firearms treat them so responsibly?

An image comes to mind:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/Superlite27/oleg.jpg

BedPimp

May 1, 2008, 06:08 AM

California has some pretty strict liability laws when it comes to firearms and children. Perhaps education and enforcement of them would ease the judge's conscience.

From http://www.firearmslawcenter.org/states/california.asp:

Under California Penal Code § 12035(b)(1), a person is liable for the crime of "criminal storage of a firearm of the first degree" if he or she keeps any loaded firearm:

[W]ithin any premises that are under his or her custody or control and he or she knows or reasonably should know that a child [defined as a person under age 18; see section 12035(a)(3)] is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child’s parent or legal guardian and the child obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes death or great bodily injury to himself, herself, or any other person.

Any person violating this provision is subject to a maximum of three years in prison and a fine of $10,000. Section 12035(d)(1).

Similarly, section 12035(b)(2) imposes liability for the crime of “criminal storage of a firearm of the second degree” upon any person who keeps any loaded firearm:

[W]ithin any premises that are under his or her custody or control and he or she knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child’s parent or legal guardian and the child obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes injury, other than great bodily injury, to himself, herself, or any other person, or carries the firearm either to a public place or in violation of section 417 [prohibiting the drawing or exhibiting of a firearm in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or unlawfully using a firearm in a fight or quarrel].

Any person in violation of section 12035(b)(2) is subject to a misdemeanor.

California also provides that adults are subject to criminal liability when a child finds a loaded or unloaded handgun on premises owned or controlled by the adult, the adult knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to that firearm without the permission of the child’s parent or legal guardian, and the child gains such access to the handgun and carries it off-premises. Section 12036(b). The penalties for violating this section consist of up to one year in a county jail and a fine of $1,000. Section 12035(d)(2). Where the child gains access to a firearm without appropriate permission and carries that firearm to any public or private preschool, elementary school, middle school, high school, or to any school-sponsored event, activity, or performance, whether occurring on school grounds or elsewhere, the adult on whose premises the firearm was found faces imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year, a fine not exceeding $5,000, or both the imprisonment and fine. Section 12036(c).

Sections 12035(b) and 12036(b), (c) do not apply when any of the following exceptions, outlined under sections 12035(c) or 12036(e), occur:

The child obtains the firearm as a result of an illegal entry into any premises by any person;

The firearm is kept in a locked container or in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure;

The firearm is carried on the person or within such a close proximity to the person that he or she can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if carried on the person;

The firearm is locked with a locking device that has rendered the firearm inoperable;

The person is a peace officer or a member of the armed forces or national guard and the child obtains the firearm during, or incidental to, the performance of the person's duties;

The child obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another person, or persons; or

The person who keeps a firearm on any premise which is under his or her custody or control has no reasonable expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to be present on the premises.

Sections 12035(e) and 12036(f) provide that “[i]t is the Legislature’s intent that a parent or guardian of a child who is injured or who dies as the result of an accidental shooting shall be prosecuted only in those instances in which the parent or guardian behaved in a grossly negligent manner or where similarly egregious circumstances exist.” In such cases, no arrest shall occur until at least seven days after the accidental shooting, and law enforcement officials are encouraged “to delay the arrest of a parent or guardian of a seriously injured child while the child remains on life-support equipment or is in a similarly critical medical condition.” Section 12035(f), 12036(g).

California law requires firearms dealers to conspicuously post on their premises warnings regarding criminal penalties for firearms owners who do not store or secure their firearms in a manner that keeps minors from possessing and using the weapons. Sections 12071(b)(7)(A)-(C), 12088.3. See the California Dealer Regulations section for a discussion of firearm ownership warnings.

In addition, California Civil Code section 1714.3 states that:

Civil liability for any injury to the person or property of another proximately caused by the discharge of a firearm by a minor under the age of 18 years shall be imputed to a parent or guardian having custody and control of the minor for all purposes of civil damages, and such parent or guardian shall be jointly and severally liable with such minor for any damages resulting from such act, if such parent or guardian either permitted the minor to have the firearm or left the firearm in a place accessible to the minor.

The liability imposed by this section is in addition to any liability otherwise imposed by law. However, no person, or group of persons collectively, shall incur liability under this section in any amount exceeding thirty thousand dollars ($ 30,000) for injury to or death of one person as a result of any one occurrence or, subject to the limit as to one person, exceeding sixty thousand dollars ($ 60,000) for injury to or death of all persons as a result of any one such occurrence.

papajohn

May 1, 2008, 06:34 AM

Funny, I've got four kids, all of who were raised with firearms literally at arms' reach for most of their childhoods, and not one of them ever did anything they shouldn't have with regards to a firearm. They were taught from an early age what firearms were for, how much fun they were, and how dangerous they are. They see them as tools, but still tools you can enjoy using recreationally. I'm sure in Kommiefornia that's a foreign concept, but that's one more reason I don't live there.

People express shock when I tell them my younger son has been shooting since he was three, and I'm don't just mean 22s. The first time he ever shot, he started with a 22 pistol, then a rifle, and later a Mini-14 and a shotgun, with a little help. He knew (and recited) the safety rules before he ever touched a gun, and is safer than many cops I've worked with. :eek:

So don't hand me this "Lock up your guns or your kids will massacre their teachers" garbage. Yes, some kids shouldn't be allowed access to firearms. My kids only problems with guns involve the price of ammunition.

Papajohn, proud Pappy of four marksmen (and markswomen) :)

If you enjoyed reading about "Email conversation with a Judge to be" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!